Oman Academic Accreditation Authority OAAA Briefing on Institutional

Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA) Briefing on Institutional and Program Standards Assessment: Approach to decision-making Dr Salim Radhawi 11 March 2014 1

Briefing Outline OAAA 1. Evolution of Institutional and Program Accreditation 2. HEI and Program QA processes 3. Project aims and outcomes 4. Features of standards and assessment processes 5. Consultation process and feedback 6. Organisation of standards, ratings and outcomes 7. Public Reporting and HEI comparability 8. Fees for Standards Assessments 2

OAAA Evolution of Institutional and Program Accreditation (1) • HEI and program accreditation are key parts of OAAA’s mandate (Royal Decree 54/2010) • First set of institutional and program standards were published in ROSQA in 2004 • ROSQA standards used in 2004/2006 (two HEIs went through institutional and program accreditation). • A review of ROSQA was carried out in 2006; this was followed by the development of the Quality Plan 3

OAAA Evolution of Institutional and Program Accreditation (2) • A new two-stage approach was proposed for HEI accreditation (Quality Audit and Standards Assessment) • The first Quality Audits were carried out in 2008 • A separate process for program accreditation was proposed • The Institutional Standards Assessment project was originally launched in 2011 • The current stage of the project, which includes both Institutional and Program Standards Assessments, commenced in 2013 4

OAAA HEI Licensure HEI QA Processes First cycle commenced 2008 HEI Accreditation Stage 1: Quality Audit ≤ 4 years HEI Accreditation Certificate Met HEI Accreditation Stage 2: Standards Assessment Appeal Not met KEY 1 -2 years on Probation Start/End Met Process Document HEI Standards Reassessment HEI Accreditation Terminated 5

OAAA Program QA Processes

OAAA Projects aims and outcomes • To review and revise – HEI standards; program standards; and accreditation processes as set out in ROSQA to improve their relevance to the Omani context and to reflect current regional and international best practice (through benchmarking) • To produce – Institutional and program Conceptual Design Frameworks (CDFs) with clear approach to decision-making – a revised set of HEI standards and a revised set of generic standards for programs – Institutional and Program Standards Assessment Manuals which include guidelines for HEIs and external reviewers – Training workshops for the sector 7

OAAA Features of HEI and Program Accreditation • Recognition that responsibility for quality lies with HEIs • Based on ROSQA but incorporates criteria not included in ROSQA, e. g. academic integrity • Align with the nine areas of the scope of the QAM and reflect quality audit findings • Internationally benchmarked and reviewed • Acknowledge the diversity of HE provision in Oman • Encourage excellence – HEIs can receive Accredited with Merit overall or at standard(s) level • Encourages the use of ADRI 8 • Developed through a consultative process

OAAA Features of the Institutional Standards Assessment process • The process looks at all areas of activity within an HEI and considers the quality systems applied to programs • National institutional accreditation is compulsory for all HEIs • Takes into consideration the HEI’s response to formal conclusions in Quality Audit Report • National schedule based on audit schedule with some flexibility 9

OAAA Features of the Program Standards Assessment process • The program is the unit of analysis but considers the impact of institutional-level activities • National program accreditation is compulsory for all HEI programs • Accreditation is for Omani programs as well as programs developed by overseas HEIs and/or with external accreditation • Program accreditation can be applied for once a cohort of students has graduated 10

Consultation Process OAAA • Formation of a national Consultative Committee to facilitate comprehensive consultation with the HE sector • Formation of an external panel of experts to provide an international perspective • Working in partnership with Mo. HE • Dialogue with external stakeholders (including Education Council, Mo. M, Mo. H, Mo. D, and Mo. E) • Publication of drafts on OAAA website with discussion board • National Symposium October 2013 (to which CC, stakeholders, professional body, employer and student representatives were invited) 11

12

OAAA Response to Feedback: Organisation of the Standards • A considerable amount of feedback highlighted the large number of elements to be assessed – There are nine standards – There are 75 criteria – Each criterion has a number of indicators – Indicators no longer need to be met for a criterion to be met – indicators are guidelines – Rating performance and commentary against indicators is no longer required – HEIs may provide other evidence to show that the requirements of a criterion has been met

OAAA Response to Feedback: Approach to Decision-making • Significant feedback was provided on the rating of ‘not applicable’ (NA) with a numerical value (‘ 0’) – No value is now given to NA • Feedback suggested that the rating scheme was too subjective and difficult to apply – Clearer definitions have been provided for each criterion rating – Descriptions/characteristics will assist HEIs/reviewers in determining the most appropriate rating for each applicable criterion and standard

OAAA Positive Feedback [The CDFs] are in many respects excellent, so congratulations to you all. In my view the Conceptual Design Framework is in very good shape. Prof Malcolm Cook, Former Pro-VC, University of Exeter, UK Prof Ulrich Hommel, Director, EBS Business School, Germany I think you should submit both the policies/standards and processes for international recognition. It was a pleasure for me to join your national symposium. I was really impressed with the approach OAAA has taken and the way participants got engaged in it. Dr Mike Hillyard, Former President of the University of St Augustine, USA Prof Badr Abu Ela, Executive Director, CAA, UAE It was real

OAAA Previous and Current Approach to Organisation of the Standards Previous Approach Current Approach Indicators are essential components of each criterion Indicators are guidelines for the type of evidence HEIs/programs might submit to demonstrate good provision or practice Indicators need to be met in order to meet the criterion, and for the criterion to meet the standard HEIs/programs can submit evidence based on other indicators to demonstrate how a criterion has been met Each indicator is given a rating which informs the overall rating of the criterion No rating is given to an indicator Commentary is provided by No commentary is required at HEIs/programs regarding how each indicator level indicator has been met

OAAA Comparison of Previous and Current Criterion Rating Scheme # Previous Rating # Current Rating 4 Worthy of Merit 4 Excellent* 3 Good 2 Satisfactory 1 Unsatisfactory 1 Not met* 0 Not Applicable NA Not Applicable * These terms were revised following further benchmarking and in order to improve clarity of understanding

ADRI as a Review Tool EN T OAAA M A R IM PR O VE PP O A C YM S LO LT EN U D EP ES T R Internal ADRI Review Followed by External Review H

OAAA Criterion Rating Definitions # Rating Definition/characteristics 4 Excellent Definition: Provision or practice is consistently very high quality, and is underpinned by effective quality improvement arrangements. Characteristics: i. Provision or practice exceeds the requirements of the criterion. ii. Provision or practice is highly effective, and is undertaken consistently; it may be a model of good practice. iii. Provision or practice is exceptional rather than typical of other comparable HEIs/programs. iv. Provision or practice incorporates systematic and effective quality improvement arrangements.

OAAA Example of ‘Excellent’ • ‘Excellent’ rating can be compared to ‘Commendation’ in Quality Audit Reports A revised innovative academic advising system was successfully implemented and has been shown to have had a significant impact on retention and identifying ‘at risk’ students; the system has received significant positive feedback, been periodically reviewed for effectiveness, indicating continuous improvement Rating against criterion 6. 5

OAAA Criterion Rating Definitions # Rating Definition/characteristics 3 Good Definition: Provision or practice is consistently high quality in most areas and is underpinned by effective quality improvement arrangements. Characteristics: i. Overall, provision or practice exceeds the requirements of the criterion. ii. Overall, provision or practice is high quality; is undertaken consistently; and meets the norms for good practice. iii. Provision or practice incorporates effective quality improvement arrangements.

OAAA Example of ‘Good’ • ‘Good’ rating can be compared to positive text in Quality Audit Reports As part of its continuous improvement system, the HEI has introduced a revised academic advising system in response to feedback; there is a comprehensive handbook and training for staff and students which has been consistently implemented; the system has had a positive impact; and the HEI has clear plans for how the system will be evaluated Rating against criterion 6. 5

OAAA Criterion Rating Definitions # Rating Definition/characteristics 2 Satisfactory Definition: Provision or practice is effective most of the time, and is underpinned by adequate quality improvement arrangements. Characteristics: i. Provision or practice meets the requirements of the criterion, and is effective most of the time ii. Provision or practice is underpinned by adequate quality improvement arrangements, which are effective most of the time.

OAAA Example of ‘Satisfactory’ • ‘Satisfactory’ rating means that the HEI/program has shown that it meets the requirements of the criterion The HEI has implemented an effective formal academic advisory system which, overall, supports students in meeting their educational goals; the system has been evaluated and improvement plans have been implemented in most departments Rating against criterion 6. 5

OAAA Criterion Rating Definitions # Rating Definition/characteristics 1 Not met Definition: Provision or practice does not meet the requirements of the criterion. Characteristics: i. Provision or practice does not meet the requirements of the criterion. ii. Provision or practice lacks effective quality improvement arrangements NA Not Applicable An HEI will be expected to justify why the standard or criterion is not applicable to the institution/program.

OAAA Example of ‘Not met’ • ‘Not Met’ rating could be compared to an Affirmation or Recommendation in Quality Audit Reports. While the HEI has a policy for academic advising, the system has not been implemented effectively throughout the HEI and has not been monitored or evaluated for its effectiveness Rating against criterion 6. 5

OAAA Examples of ‘Not applicable’ • ‘Not Applicable’ rating needs to be justified by the HEI/program From XX HEI: Criteria 3. 1 – 3. 6 do not apply to XX HEI as it is classified as a College and does not run Student Learning by Research Programs (see SM 001 HEI license approval)

OAAA Criteria ratings towards meeting the standard Description Standard Rating Most* of the criteria are rated as ‘Excellent’; no criteria are rated as ‘Not Met’. Excellent Most of the criteria are rated as ‘Good’; no criteria are rated as ‘Not Met’. Good Most criteria are rated satisfactory; no criteria are rated ‘Not Met’. Satisfactory One or more criteria are rated ‘Not Met’ Not met * ‘Most’ in this context means more than 50%

OAAA How Standards Ratings inform the Assessment Outcome Standard Assessment Outcome Most of the standards are rated ‘Excellent’ Accredited with Merit All standards are rated, as a minimum, ‘Satisfactory’, and one or more standards are rated as ‘Excellent’ Accredited with Merit in one or more standard(s) All standards are rated either ‘Satisfactory’ or ‘Good Accredited One or more of the standards are rated as ‘Not Met’ On Probation One or more of the standards are rated as ‘Not Met’ by the Standards Reassessment Panel Not accredited

OAAA Standards Assessment Outcome: Outcome Deferred Accreditation Outcomes Description Outcome Deferred Where action(s) by the HEI is required to meet a standard (s), and where the Standards Assessment Panel determines that the HEI can implement the action(s) is a short time period (up to three months), the OAAA may grant the HEI a period of time to demonstrate that it has addressed these outstanding issues, and that it meets the standard. An accreditation outcome decision will not be made public during this time, and this stage will be considered part of the accreditation process. Once the OAAA is satisfied that the standard(s) has been fully met, the HEI/program will be accredited, and the outcome made public. If the standard is not met within the designated timeframe, the HEI/program will be placed on probation, and the outcome made public.

OAAA Status of HEIs and Programs on OAAA website • • • Licensed Audited (for HEIs only) On probation Accredited with Merit in one or more standards • Not accredited (after Standards Reassessment) 31

OAAA Public Reporting and Comparability • Accreditation outcomes will be published on OAAA website, with ratings against each standard and criterion • A 4 -point rating scale provides a transparent means for stakeholders to identify/compare how an HEI/program has performed • Stakeholders will be able to apply their own priorities in order to identify the HEI/program which meets their needs • This approach to public reporting avoids 32 institutional/program ‘league tables’

Stakeholder Comparison of HEIs OAAA 100 Stakeholders input their own weightage for every criterion 90 Overall score 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C D HEIs E F 33

Stakeholder Comparison of Programs OAAA 100 Stakeholders input their own weightage for every criterion 90 Overall score 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 A B C Programs D E F 34

OAAA Fees for Standards Assessments • A proposal for fees for Institutional Standards Assessment has been submitted to the Ministry of Finance • The fee will be calculated on the HEI’s Classification and number of FTE students • The fee structure is based on international benchmarking • Fees for Program Standards Assessment are yet to be determined

www. oaaa. gov. om 36